Re: [PATCH 6/6] lib: Provide a signed version of simple_itoa()

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1609 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 03:43:17AM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 16:36, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:04:00PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 15:20, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:12:30PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > > Am 19. März 2025 12:59:08 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
> > > > > >In some cases we want to show a signed value to the user without needing
> > > > > >to use the full printf() implementation. Add a new version of the
> > > > > >simple_itoa() function to handle this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where will this be used?
> > > > > Why can't printf be used?
> > > > > Why would this fit into this series which is about test improvements and not about functional changes?
> > > >
> > > > It would be more fair to say that only one patch in this series is about
> > > > testing and 5 are adding otherwise unused changes to functions that
> > > > presumably are used in some later as yet to be posted series.
> > >
> > > Sure, would you like me to change the cover letter?
> >
> > No, I'd like to see the test by itself and defer the unused additions
> > until there's something to review it alongside of.
> 
> So you don't want simple_itoa_signed() or abuf_printf() until you see
> the series which uses it? I'm struggling to square that with your
> request to break things up into smaller chunks, though.

I'm sorry you find this normal requirement difficult.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]